Horne v. Hoyle

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri

Horne v. Hoyle

27 F. 216, 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 2066

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri

DecidedMarch 24, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 27 F. 216 (Horne v. Hoyle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Horne v. Hoyle, 27 F. 216, 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 2066 (circtedmo 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Brewer, J.,

(orally.) In the case of Horne against Hoyle there is a motion to strike out parts of the answer. The petition alleges a contract to place an electric plant in a building in this city, the performance of the contract, non-payment of part of the purchase money, and an assignment of the contract to the plaintiff. The answer in one defense avers that it was a part of the contract that the contractor should furnish an indemnifying bond, guarantying against all infringements, and that that bond was not given.- Of course that states a perfect defense. It further alleges that since the putting of the plant in the building two suits have been commenced for infringement, and are pending, and that the defendant has been put to the expense of employing counsel to defend those suits. The motion is to strike out this last defense. Obviously, it should be sustained. If no bond was given, there is a perfect defense. If there was no stipulation for a bond, then it is immaterial whether defendant has been sued or not. If a bond was given, the remedy of the defendant is on that bond. Non constat, that neither the contractor nor the [217]*217plaintiff were parties to that bond or liable on it, and the averment presents simply an immaterial matter for traverse and testimony.

The motion will he sustained.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Brewer, J.,

(orally.) In the case of Horne against Hoyle there is a motion to strike out parts of the answer. The petition alleges a contract to place an electric plant in a building in this city, the performance of the contract, non-payment of part of the purchase money, and an assignment of the contract to the plaintiff. The answer in one defense avers that it was a part of the contract that the contractor should furnish an indemnifying bond, guarantying against all infringements, and that that bond was not given.- Of course that states a perfect defense. It further alleges that since the putting of the plant in the building two suits have been commenced for infringement, and are pending, and that the defendant has been put to the expense of employing counsel to defend those suits. The motion is to strike out this last defense. Obviously, it should be sustained. If no bond was given, there is a perfect defense. If there was no stipulation for a bond, then it is immaterial whether defendant has been sued or not. If a bond was given, the remedy of the defendant is on that bond. Non constat, that neither the contractor nor the [217]*217plaintiff were parties to that bond or liable on it, and the averment presents simply an immaterial matter for traverse and testimony.

The motion will he sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 F. 216, 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 2066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horne-v-hoyle-circtedmo-1886.